-
Why the Idea of Literal or Dynamic Bible Translations Isn’t Quite Right
I am often asked what makes for a good Bible translation. To many people, the answer is simple—you just need a literal Bible translation (i.e., one that translates word-for-word from Greek or Hebrew into English). However, there is a little more complexity to the issue that needs to be considered. Literal and Dynamic Bible Translations Bible translations have traditionally been classified as literal-formal or dynamic equivalence. Dynamic equivalence is normally used to refer to translations which attempt to emphasize the meaning of phrases rather than each individual word (NIV is often used as an example). In these kinds of translations, there is a little more flexibility in how a word or phrase might be translated given the given context. Alternatively, a literal translation (or formal equivalence) is often touted as the best due to its word-for-word approach and its attempt to be more objective or consistent in its translation (KJV…
-
Why Lucifer is Not Satan’s Name
For most people, Lucifer is synonymous with Satan. Christians and non-Christians regularly refer to Satan as Lucifer, whether in Bible studies about Satan’s fall, or in classic literature, music, and poetry. For example, John Milton’s epic “Paradise Lost” regularly refers to Satan as Lucifer. “Lucifer Rising,” a 2008 release by Candlemass (a so-called Swedish “doom metal” band) also contains the following lyrics: Oh, blessed the children of doomAs they dance on the meadowsOh, poet and merchant and witchYou know the master is here Lucifer, Lucifer, Lucifer rising For the record, I have never heard the above song, but just was looking through different songs that contained a reference to Lucifer. Regardless, it is rather easy to see with brief searches that Lucifer is a popular name to reference Satan. This identity was even picked up by Hollywood, where Jerry Bruckheimer and DC entertainment were involved in a TV series called…
-
Perhaps Sin is Not Crouching at the Door (Genesis 4:7)
Whenever one challenges a translation that most English translations use, it is natural to be skeptical. I know I was… at least initially. But, as I have chewed on the data and worked it over in my mind, I have become much more sympathetic to the idea that most English translations get Genesis 4:7 wrong. Genesis 4:7 is most commonly interpreted as sin personified as a wild animal crouching outside the door, ready to pounce! But, I would like to advocate for an alternative understanding. Perhaps Genesis 4:7 is not talking about sin crouching at the door but about God providing a sin offering for Cain as a means of reconciliation. English Translations and Genesis 4:7 I imagine that most readers did not even know there was a possible alternative rendering of Genesis 4:7. This is largely because of the near-unanimous translation of Genesis 4:7. Here is a list of…
-
Homosexuality was Added to the Bible in 1946
It is becoming more and more popular to argue that the Bible speaking against homosexuality is a recent innovation that was added to the Bible to make Scripture anti-gay. One very common iteration of the argument is that the word “homosexual” was not in any Bible prior to 1946. The implication of such argumentation is that the Bible does not speak against homosexuality, and that the church should therefore accept a gay lifestyle as being compatible with biblical teaching. Those who put forward such argumentation typically point to Luther’s German translation of 1 Corinthians 6:9, which uses the word Knabenschänder, or “boy molester” rather than the typical idea of homosexual found in modern translations. Additionally, proponents point to the KJV translation, done in 1611, which translated 1 Corinthians 6:9 as, “nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind.” It was not until 1946 with the translation of the RSV that…
-
Can We Trust Our Bible Translations?
Can we trust our Bible translations? This question naturally belongs as part of our previous series on the King James Version. Some people claim that the King James Version is without any errors in it, thus being the authoritative, inerrant Word of God. However, as we demonstrated previously, there are mistakes in the translation of the KJV. This brings up the question, how can we trust other Bible translations (any of them) if there might be errors in them? This question not only applies to the KJV, but also the newer Bible translations (NASB, ESV, NIV, etc.). In order to work through this question, it will be helpful to consider the following points. 1. God’s Word is Inerrant Only in the Original, not in Translations Because every word of Scripture was given through prophecy, and since prophecy is considered authoritative and accurately representing God (cf. Deut 18:22; 2 Pet 1:21-22),…
-
Book Review: Authorized—the Use & Misuse of the King James Bible
Every so often I try to write a brief book review on a book that interests me. Because I have written in some detail about the King James Version, I was sent Authorized: The Use & Misuse of the King James Bible, written by Mark Ward. Mark received his PhD in NT Interpretation at Bob Jones University, and currently works for Faithlife. He works in a variety of capacities, one of which is being an academic editor for Lexham Press. He also blogs at By Faith We Understand. Authorized is an interesting take on the KJV Only issue because it approaches the issue from an English language perspective. Most books that deal with the KJV deal with mistranslations or inadequate manuscript support. However, the approach in this book is to have a serious discussion about some of the problems of reading the KJV in English. Reading the KJV in English…
-
Seven Posts about the King James Version
I have done a fair bit of reading, research, and writing on the King James Version. Part of the reason I have spent much time on the issue is because I have often heard the teaching that modern English Bible translations are theologically dangerous. I have had many charitable exchanges with friends who have argued that we should only use the King James Version, and my heart desires people to think biblically and accurately about Bible translations. Thus, I thought it would be helpful to list all of the posts I have written about the King James Version for easy accessibility. In light of this, the following posts deal with various issues pertaining to the King James Version and Bible translation in general. 1. Thou Shalt Not Only Use the King James Version This post acts as an introduction to the King James Version and briefly discusses why it is…
-
The Received Text, the KJV, and Erasmus
We can’t talk about the KJV without talking about the Received Text (often called the Textus Receptus, or TR for short). The Received Text is the Greek text which underlies the KJV. It is called the Received Text because that was the phrase used in the introduction of the Elzevir brothers 2nd edition of their Greek New Testament in 1633. The phrase “Received Text” became a moniker to refer to the Greek text from Erasmus in 1516 on. This Greek text is largely different from the Greek text which underlies the modern versions (NASB, ESV, NIV, etc.). Why does that matter? Modern versions (NASB, ESV, NIV, etc) use a translation philosophy which is usually called an “eclectic approach,” This means they evaluate over 5,800 Greek manuscripts, looking at patterns, external and internal evidence, and thereby determining what the original Greek manuscript read. Some of these manuscripts that are utilized in the…
-
Common Arguments from Those Who Hold to KJV Only
In the last two posts we have discussed some of the problems with holding to the KJV as the only translation that should be used today. The first post addressed the general background of the translators who worked on the KJV. The second post looked at differences between the 1611 KJV and the modern KJV. Today I want to address some of the common arguments that are used by those who hold to the KJV only position. 1. There has to be a Bible version that is completely inerrant, hence God gave us the KJV. There are multiple problems with this. First, is it true that God has to give us an inerrant translation? No, God never promised us an inerrant translation. He promises His Words are perfect and inerrant (which is in the form of the original text). However, saying that God has to now provide an inerrant translation…
-
Are there Errors in the King James Version (KJV)?
Last time we looked at some of the reasons why one should not hold to a view that the KJV is the only version Christians should use. Today I want to go deeper into the issue and look at the KJV itself. We will note some of the corrections that have been made from the original publication to the modern version. The KJV was originally published in 1611 by translators who followed 15 principles of translation. However, as the years past, the KJV (also known as the Authorized Version) was in serious need of an update. Because English grammar and spellings had changed, in 1762 a Cambridge printer, Joseph Bentham, made many revisions. These revisions updated the spellings, punctuation, and the like. However, this version never caught on because the printing impressions were largely destroyed by fire. In 1769, however, Benjamin Blayney, took Bentham’s revisions and incorporated them into his…